Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty
Fans aren't responsible for concussions and injuries because they buy a ticket to a game. Nobody is forced to play football, there are many other jobs they could have if they wanted them. They choose not to. Professional athletes know this going into their profession: They're job comes with a likely chance they will earn a lot of money, with a small risk of serious injury.
|
If no fans paid to watch men bashing about on the field, do you think American football as a profession would exist? If men didn't receive money to spend huge chunks of time in their life training and playing, do you think they'd be willing to run the risks they do to the extent they do?
I disagree with you that the risk of serious injury is small in American football, although I realize one person may view as reasonable a risk level that another views as too great:
Quote:
From a Time Magazine 2010 article:
Repeated blows to the head, which are routine in football, can have lifelong repercussions. A study commissioned by the NFL found that ex–pro players over age 50 were five times as likely as the national population to receive a memory-related-disease diagnosis. Players 30 to 49 were 19 times as likely to be debilitated.
Some scientists now fear that the thousands of lower-impact, or "subconcussive," blows these players receive, even if they don't result in documented concussions, can be just as damaging as — if not more so than — the dramatic head injuries that tend to receive more attention and intensive treatment." Football Too Dangerous? NFL Studies Head Injuries - TIME
|
These risks described above would be too much for me to run, and I feel these risks are too large for an employer to expose its employees (NFL players) to for the sake of a
game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty
Ok, now you're really losing it... Yes I am assuming here, but I doubt you really watch a lot of football. First off, there are hardly any hits by an offensive player that are illegal. The only two I can think of is Blocking in the Back and Chop-Blocks (Where an offensive player cuts the legs out from a defender while the defender is already engaged with another offensive player). These are two of the most serious penalties (though they hardly happen) and are penalized heavier than the rest. Channing Crowder, like a lot of defenders, is just frustrated because the NFL is telling the defense they have to be less physical.
Do you understand what Crowder is saying though? Of course the NFL is driven by ticket sales, it is a BUSINESS. Channing is saying that they are over-protecting receivers and quarterbacks (because for the most part, they are the marquee names that draw fans). You are saying that his quote shows the NFL is ignoring safety issues for the sake of money, when he is actually showing the complete opposite with his quote. So I think you misinterpreted that completely.
|
My point was that the NFL *is* a business, like you say, and decides when to penalize hits not just based on the issue of improving safety for players but also on what brings in money. Safety isn't always the main priority. I feel Channing's quote shows that the NFL *does* ignore safety issues for the sake of money (by not calling penalties as often on offensive players) even as it enforces safety rules to protect the offensive players.
Here's another quote about the NFL ignoring safety issues by allowing chop blocks. Why shouldn't defensive players be upset by lack of protection for them?
Quote:
NFL needs to look at protecting defenders from chop blocks - McClatchy Network - Kentucky.com
Oct. 21, 2010
"Why is it fair for an offensive lineman to dive at your knees?" Dwight Freeney said earlier this year. "If they're so health conscious and worried about protecting guys, ban cut blocks.
"You've banned everything else. You've banned quarterback hits - you can't hit him here, you can't hit him there - well, what about cut blocks? Do you know how many serious injuries have come from cut blocks? It's ridiculous. It's so one-sided."
|
But you are right to point out that the NFL
is trying harder now to prevent players from getting knocked out of the game, so Channing's quote does also show the NFL is paying attention to safety issues for the sake of money...at least while protecting offensive players.
And you are right, Dirty...I hardly ever watch American football anymore if I can avoid it, partly because I hate to see people injured. I also don't like watching other people supporting a game that can be so harmful. The last time when I watched was in the 80s when the Dolphins were my favorite team, mostly because 1. I like dolphins, 2. I liked their uniforms, 3. they were often the underdogs, and 4. I admired Dan Marino.
So, you can see I was never an avid fan of watching the game itself!
Also, I prefer to play a sport rather than watch it. I had a lot of fun on my college coed (flag) intramural team. My football interest during the last 10 years, though, has been the failures of American football safety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty
Fans like big hits. Fans also like seeing the best players healthy and playing the game of football. It makes no sense to think that the NFL thought they would lose fans by reducing the big hits on game day. They are more likely to lose fans because their favorite star player got injured and can't play anymore.
Where are you getting the impression that ANYBODY enjoys seeing a player get really hurt on the field? I don't know one fan in the entire world who ENJOYS seeing guys get seriously injured.
|
I still feel...and we'll just have to agree to disagree...that many people really don't care that much what happens to others, *especially* if the player is someone they *don't* like because he is from a despised team.
This is one reason I don't like the whole "us vs. them" mentality of contact sports. I see it as concocted, blind patriotism that pits one group of people against another unnecessarily, leads to unnecessary serious injuries, and ends up with one side gloating when another gets hurt.
You think not one fan in the entire world enjoys seeing a player hurt?!? Here's the footage of the hit that caused Eagles' wide receiver Desean Jackson to be out of the game with a head injury after Dunta Robinson plunged into him (not helmet-to-helmet, but close). Beneath the video someone comments that "Giant fans apparently cheered the replay." Dirty, if fans are so knowledgeable about concussions and injuries, then if some DID cheer I think it is safe to assume they are
glad to see a man laid down on the ground, his brain bruised and bleeding:
Here's Video Of The Desean Jackson Hit
I agree with you that many fans don't want people to be injured...but I feel you ignore that some fans DO enjoy the violence, just as was described in the quotes from my previous post. Also, if fans know they are watching men damage their brains through repeated collisions, then aren't they supporting that by paying for and watching it?
Quote:
|
And ok... I don't really know why the NFL ignored the issue before these past few years, but NFL players aren't children and don't need to be explained the risk of playing their sport. Ok, maybe the NFL didn't inform them thoroughly enough of the dangers, but jesus christ there are smart, grown men out here. You don't think they know that their sport, which features a lot of physicality and contact by some of the best athletes to ever walk the earth, poses health threats? Don't kid yourself or pretend these guys are retarded. But lets put the whole "NFL ignoring health risks for years" thing aside for a second... It's not about what they did in the past, it's what they are doing now. What, we're just gonna sit around and dwell on the past mistakes they may have made instead of focusing on the present and the future? You can't change what happened years ago, so what are you even trying to say? The NFL wasn't responsible? Ok... well that was then and this is now.
|
That's the question for you, Dirty...why DID the NFL ignore the issue of concussions before these past few years. I've given you my answer: the NFL did not care about player safety as much as they could have because the NFL wants wins and viewers, which equal MONEY.
The NFL put money in front of human lives. That's the opinion of Hall of Famer Jim Brown, as well. Did you read his quote I posted earlier?
I disagree with you when you say players "don't need to be explained the risk of playing their sport." NFL players are employees, and ALL EMPLOYEES deserve to be informed fully by their employers of the risks faced in their job.
Thanks for acknowledging that the NFL hasn't done as much as it could to protect players in the past. At least we agree on that! I'm also glad, like you, that they are paying more attention to preventing injuries now. A reason to pay attention to past mistakes is to learn WHY they happened to that they won't be repeated.
One thing the NFL can do now is PAY FOR THE LIFELONG CARE OF ALL THOSE PLAYERS INJURED WHILE IN THE NFL, especially those who played back when the NFL *wasn't* informing players of the risks and was sending them back onto the field after concussions.
Maybe we should go take our argument to an American football thread. Then I can take on more of you fans at one time!
By the way, Dirty, I agree with what you said about players being no less tough than they were before. I thought Crash Override's view that players are weaker now compared to in the past was
completely incorrect. If he *is* right, maybe that's just because the NFL's fight to end rampant steroid use by players is working a little better now!
